A new USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Monday night finds a core of 19% of U.S. voters who say they are "very likely" to vote for her should she run, and an additional 24% who are somewhat likely to do so, giving her a decent reservoir of potential support to build upon. However, nearly as many voters (41%) currently say they would be not at all likely to vote for her....

The poll finds 70% saying their opinion of Palin has not changed as a result of her resignation. Though this is clearly the minority of Americans, more say their opinion of her has gotten worse (17%) than improved (9%).

A lot of people who don't like Palin are going to say their opinion got worse, but these folks don't matter to her. How many of them are in the 17%? Then you've got 9% who like her even more. And the vast majority of people say their opinion is the same.

So all this cogitating and opining over the weekend is just so much blather. Palin got away with extricating herself from her annoying duties in that remote northern outpost. And I was right to say that quitting might have been the best choice with her, it's not worth getting all exercised about now, and we can just wait and see how she does when and if she runs.

157 comments:

It comes back to the 2010 elections. If Palin hits the road and helps deliver the House to Republicans, then she is the frontrunner for 2012. No one but the "dead-enders" here will care that she resigned.

If she fails to help Republicans gain a significant number of seats, then she was never going to be a serious contender in 2012 anyway.

Resigning the governorship has enabled to hit the circuit in a way she could never have done in 2010 as a public official. It was smart politics no matter how much her naysayers may claim otherwise.

All questions about her will be answered in November 2010, and Obama and the Democrats seem bound and determined to make her job between now and then all that much easier.

Palin got away with extricating herself from her annoying duties in that remote northern outpost.

In what sense did she get away with it? People's opinions in 2009 don't matter much to the presidential race in 2012. We'll have to wait and see how much people care about her incomplete performance as governor once (if) she runs for president.

You yourself have said she deemphasized the news by breaking it over the holiday weekend. If she runs for president, she'll have to deal with attacks from specific Republican opponents reminding people that she defaulted on her elected duties.

"So all this cogitating and opining over the weekend is just so much blather."

Most of the "critique" of Palin has been blather.

Why do the middle class so frighten the progressives? Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, they apparently give the left screaming nightmares. Is it because they fear someone who is actually part of the demographic they like to pretend that they represent?

The news is fresh in people's minds, and Palin hasn't had the opportunity yet to do anything of consequence since then. So this is the freshest thing in their minds.

If it doesn't affect them today, it's highly doubtful that 2 years from now it will matter more. That's backwards thinking to put it kindly.

If Palin delivers the House for Republicans in 2010 as she seems very capable of doing (since 49 seats carried by McCain-Palin in 2008 are currently held by Democrats and the Republicans only need 40 seats to retake the majority), how many Republicans will have an even more favorable view of her than they do now. How many moderates and Independents?

She has just come off 9 months of the worst slanders and smears her opponents can throw at her, and her favorability numbers are on the rise. Even Gallup is showing that she is already net positive.

By 2012, the public will have had time to fully digest everything the Democratic Party tried - and failed - to do to her. It will be old news. The Left has expended its full load of ammunition already. There is nothing left in the barrel for 2012.

Her book will be another boost to her popularity, as she will have the opportunity to present "her side" of the story on her terms without the filter of a biased media. Do you think that's more or less likely to increase her popularity?

As far as her potential Republican opponents they have their own issues. For example, how do you think the failure of MassCare (only 26% of residents there think it's working) is going to play with the Republican base. How about his changing views on abortion? There's a reason he didn't capture the nomination in 2008, and it wasn't because he was facing a powerhouse of opponents.

Quite frankly, you're looking at it through your own partisanship and not with any sense of reality at all.

"Well, it seems like at least one of them will be a former Governor who completed the duties he was elected for in a politically hostile state."

And instituted a failed government-run healthcare system and has already proven his overall lack of appeal to Republican primary voters.

Not that he can't win, but this rallying of the Left around Romney is reminiscent of how McCain was their favorite in 2008 too because they knew he was beatable in the general election. I sincerely doubt Republicans will allow the Left or the media to pick their candidate twice in a row.

I'm not sure why the Republicans would want to back Palin. They tried the anti-intellectual approach and it did not work. There is plenty of time, and plenty of viable candidates. This Country needs more than a personality.

The news is fresh in people's minds, and Palin hasn't had the opportunity yet to do anything of consequence since then. So this is the freshest thing in their minds.

If it doesn't affect them today, it's highly doubtful that 2 years from now it will matter more. That's backwards thinking to put it kindly.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, I realize that the news just happened recently, and that in 2011-12, it will have happened less recently. But I just don't trust any polls taken years before a presidential race. They're meaningless. We have no idea what the political climate is going to look like: how popular Obama will be, who the Republican candidates will be, etc. The people responding to these polls simply aren't capable of forecasting their voting behavior years in advance.

I should add: people just aren't in a "voting for president" frame of mind right now. It'll take years for that to happen and for people to be immersed in the relevant details. If you trusted presidential polls taken before any significant campaigning has happened, you'd predict that Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton would win the 2004 and 2008 primaries (respectively) by landslides.

I've been pretty sure she was going to be a major figure in the 2012 election a long time back. And I figure after she goes through the intensive policy education that every Presidential contender goes through, I'll be interested in seeing her.

As it is, she's got loads of natural talent, and a great life story, but she hasn't had the chance to get up to speed on all the things a Presidential contender is supposed to know. It doesn't help that there has been a spotlight on her non-stop for months either.

I hope this gives her the opportunity to go dark for about 6 months, doing nothing but the occasional speaking engagement, working on policy, a book, and on developing her communication skills.

Then in 2010 she can come out and campaign for the House, and see what kind of influence she has.

"The people responding to these polls simply aren't capable of forecasting their voting behavior years in advance."

But they provide a strong sense of where they are today when it is most likely to affect their thinking. Either Palin will take to speaking circuit and attend fundraisers and help elect Republicans - in which case today's news is like yesterday's garbage, or she decides not to continue in politics - in which case today's news is like yesterday's garbage.

I can only agree with you so far as saying that, if Palin continues in politics as seems likely, public opinion of her is likely to change. But I fail to see how that opinion is in any way likely to get worse. Is Andrew Sullivan going to start rumors about her other children too? Does David Letterman have a joke about raping Piper this time up his sleeve? Does Shannyn Moore have any more scurrilous lies to tell? Maybe the recycled lies the Left told in 2008 will have more resonance the 600th time the Left tells them?

The same Huckabee whose base is where Palin is most likely going to see her strongest support and who was unable to win the Republican nomination in 2008 even when no one else in the field seriously contested him for those voters?

Well, it seems like at least one of them will be a former Governor who completed the duties he was elected for in a politically hostile state.

MM, I assume you mean Romney. You know, I preferred him much more than McCain but our fu&@ed up primary system didn’t allow me to have a say in the matter but I digress. I don’t disagree that her resignation isn’t a plus for her if she is seeking a future in national politics but it remains to be seen what condition the country is in the next few years. At the rate we’re going, I’m not optimistic. This last election proved that majority of the country were swayed by some good speechifying and little else. Obama was good at rallying his side and Palin is equally up to the task for the other side. If we’re in the same or worse shape by 2010 or 2011, then Obama’s hopey-changey is going to ring a bit hollow by then and people will be less interested in Palin resigning back in ’09.

Palin doesn't have to "go dark." Resigning her office means that now she can choose to speak out selectively on the subjects where she is already strong: energy independence, for example, or to do as Romney does, and simply issue statements without having to take questions on them.

So even if you feel that she doesn't have a full command of every single topic, that doesn't require that she avoid the public spotlight. Look at Obama, he can only manage press conferences with planted questions and a supine media and town halls where his staff pre-selects those in attendance. If Palin is even half as good at selecting her venues in which she speaks out, she'll be just fine.

Palin's duties have proven to be much more than "annoying." Kept up at the current rate, the hailstorm of ethics charges threatened to leave her family with something like $1,000,000 in legal bills by the end of her term. She has a legal defense fund, and I'm sure she could have come with methods to deal with this mess. But it adds an enormous complication to her life, which goes far beyond an "annooyance."

This, of course, was precisely the idea behind this loathsome tactic. It succeeded in driving her from office, but that victory is looking more and more Pyrrhic.

Of course Huckabee and every one of her opponents will use this resignation against her. So what? If she scratches her left ear on Thursday, they'll use that against her. She has become the center of the worst public insanity I have ever seen in the U.S., and NOTHING she can do or say will end this.

Whether she runs for office again or not, at least she has emerged with a base of core support, as well as prevent her family's financial ruin as a result of the hysteria.

In cases of battered wife syndrome the attention the focus seems to be placed on the woman “coming back for more”, she deserved it.

Palin resigns and it is as if her aggressors felt baited by her. Baited to beat her one more time, beat her senseless, beat her so she never gets up again. How dare she make any kind of move? Who does she think she is?

"No. He was promoted to President by 67 million people in this country who voted for him. Nobody voted for Palin to quit her job that I'm aware of."

No he wasn't. He "quit" doing his job as Illinois senator 2 years into the job when he decided to run for President. He was no longer doing the people's business: how many votes did he miss again? Remind me? Yeah, didn't think you wanted to go there.

But he still collected a paycheck despite showing up for his job only rarely. In an environment where the public is growing increasingly fed up with government waste and overspending, the person who thought collecting a check from the taxpayers while not doing his job for 2 years isn't exactly going to get the better of that argument.

I don't see her as having any chance of prevailing through the primaries, running as a Republican, and actually winning the party nomination in 2012. Just won't happen unless the GOP has absolutely no one else willing to run.

Her running as a third party candidate is much more feasible, for her, but maybe not for anyone else:

If Palin managed to catch all her critics unaware, wowed the world in the primaries, I suppose she could be a contender in 2012. But that is a lot of ifs, and even Palin supporters know she hurt herself with her resignation if that was her goal.

But if she makes a difference in 2010, helps the GOP in 2012, bones up on policy wonk issues and conservative bonofides, gives another rip roaring speech at the GOP convention that year...well then who knows.

And like Clinton before her and her own approval numbers show, the more they beat on her the more her approval goes. America likes the underdog, and they hate bullies.

Every time they make scurrilous attacks, they lose more moderates and Independents who don't want to be associated with their particular brand of "politics." As distasteful as it is, from a purely political standpoint I would never doing anything to discourage them from continuing down their current path. The Tina Browns, Todd Purdhams, Shannyn Moores, Andrew Sullivans, Peggy Noonans, etc. have absolutely zero clue about the mindset of the average American and still can't see that the more they dislike Palin, the more she appeals to voters.

Hoosier Daddy : I think Palin can simply use Huckabee against himself and come out ahead.

Would anyone even remember anything Huckabee said? And wouldn't the Palin fans despise anyone who attacked her? She's the kind of person you give plenty of respect to and let other people destroy themselves attacking.

The two rules any Republican must follow: don't mess with Palin and don't mess with Rush. Bonus points if you manage to defend them.

You young puppies. In 1965-1966 some other Republican was "put a fork in him, he's done" but ran around the country working hard for the election of Republican office-holders for governor, House of Representatives, and Senate.

He won the Republican nomination for President in 1968 and won back-to-back elections.

I don't think Sarah Palin is as politically astute as Dick Nixon, but she's not nearly as paranoid and she's much more attractive (to me, at least) and will have a broader appeal to the same voters that Democrats need to win but their leadership (Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Kennedy) openly despise than Dick Nixon ever did.

You liberals would have done better to leave her alone in Alaska. But you couldn't because you're stupid.

"You liberals would have done better to leave her alone in Alaska. But you couldn't because you're stupid."

Dead on. As a governor of Alaska, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to participate meaningfully in helping Republican candidates in 2010. She would have been tied to her desk for the most part. She wouldn't have been able to dedicate her days to building a national level organization because she would have been too busy conducting Alaska's business. She wouldn't have had the opportunity to "do her homework" while trying to balance her job and her family. Who has that kind of extra time?

So they did her the favor of giving her an excuse to free herself from those chains. As another commenter put it, the Left had her in a cage and they were poking her with sticks. What they forgot is that the left the key to the cage in easy reach, and now they're horrified that she found and used it.

It was a strategic blunder: not nearly the first they've made in the last year and surely not going to be their last.

""What a strange game. The only [winning move] is not to play." Joshua in War Games.

That's an example I use on a fairly regular basis with friends and family when talking about futile exercises - whether it be in relationships or other situations. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who still thinks of that scene.

It's reminiscent of Mike Allen of Politico getting caught with his pants down a few days ago on John Ziegler's radio show. After Allen made several accusations of Palin being a "circus act" and "not being able to be taken seriously" on MSNBC earlier that morning, Ziegler confronted him on it and Allen was reduced to a stammering idiot because he wasn't able to back up anything he said.

Listening to the audio was definitely worth a good laugh. It shows just how shallow and dishonest most of the criticism about Palin is.

For sheer, raw, drooling-at-the-mouth hatred on the part of the liberal media and their Democrat masters, no one tops Dick Nixon, though IMAO Sarah comes close.

It is sooooo crazy, that Republicans keep making these analogies between Sarah and Tricky Dick without even a hint of irony. It's as if you forget that he wound up leaving as the most disgraced President in history, and half of his legacy is his extreme narcissism, self-pity and hatred of others who weren't like him. Well thinking about it, maybe you have a point

Palin detractor Yglesias caught with his pants down . (in a manner of speaking ;)

Lem, that is a perfect illustration of how the left vilifies Palin yet ignores or praises their guy for saying the same thing. I think we have gotten to the point where we are simply talking past each other. I’ve said before I don’t consider Palin to be some intellectual heavyweight but I just am amazed how they call Palin stupid and at the same time ignore Biden’s constant idiocy (In fact, how this guy holds elected office is beyond my comprehension but I digress).

I think most conservatives view Palin as someone who can rally the troops but not necessarily someone who has sits around and ponders policy like a Bobbie Jindal who is very smart but as charismatic as a stump. Unfortunately its difficult to find someone who has a combination of both qualities.

Althouse: Was the word *hysteria* deliberate, in the Greek sense of "the womb"? I ask because I think the hysterical reaction to Palin from many mainstream feminists stems from the movement's longtime ambivalance, if not outright antagonism, toward motherhood. Why else are mainstream feminists gleeful about single and gay parenthood but seethe with rage when it comes to Palin? They cannot—will not—allow themselves to see her appeal because they reject the notion of a traditional mother having any power. This is what leads young dweebs like Michelle Goldberg to claim that it is Sarah who is hysterical, hysterically insane, even though it is Goldberg who happily uses the word "hate" in describing her feelings toward the governor.

Sarah appears to hold the GOP wisdom that it is only your supporters who matter..as evidenced by the observation of "she doesn't care about them".

No matter who runs unless it is of course Sarah, the vote will always be fairly close with the nominees walking down the 50% line and hoping to sway a couple from the left or right of dead center.

After 8 years of democrats feeling like the nation was run like a good old boys club and that their opinion didn't matter a lick, a furtherance of that arrogance will do little to improve their chances.

Caribou Barbie has little to offer and I am constantly surprise that any thinking, rationale person who values his/her vote would give it to her.

She would win all the primary states, except New Hampshire and the primary would be done after about 10 states.

New Hampshire Republicans are what are called "libertine" but what I call faux republicans or RINOS. If they don't have God in their life they aren't republicans to me. Also, they have all those new Massholes living there. Godless motherfuckers.

Jason, not sure where you come up with those rules. Palin has shown some significant flaws that need to be addressed (though the vicious attacks only make me defend her more). And as for Rush, he's a blowhard who only helps to reduce the level of discourse in this country. I don't see why I should support that.

The liberal punditry talking to the liberal punditry. To the great unwashed Sarah's queen. And to the washed who hold incorrect opinions Sarah's queen. Which leaves academics and underclassniks for Zero.

Political obituaries have been written for a lot of people who turned out to not be done, Nixon, Reagan, Mccain (who was allegedly toast a few months before he won the nomination). As long as politics is a popularity contest, no one is ever really done.

People are overlooking one of the chief benefits of Palin's resignation, which is she stops having to make decisions on the record. Obama's election has been proof of concept of a couple of trends that have been developing over the last few years:a)experience means less than marketingb)lack of record is an asset, not a hindrance

People with actual experience in government or leadership didn't do well at all, in either party, during the last couple of elections. Thus all that being in a chief executive is doing for you is establishing a paper trail for your decisions (inconvenient when you need to adjust your positions to attract voters), allow for distortion (making women pay for rape kits) and opening your life up to public inquiry and examination (notice how Palin got more grief over having her email broken into then the guy that did the breaking). There's precious little upside in the current political climate for anyone with Presidential aspirations to do much more than gain enough national prominence to establish name recognition and a semi-credible claim to be qualified (which are really just marketing functions) and then run before the other sides attack dogs hurt you too badly. Palin didn't take the most efficient route, and agreeing to run with McCain was a massive mistake, but she achieved the first, and has weathered most of the second. If she can be a rainmaker and a vote getter for the next couple of years, keep a relatively low profile, and wait for the Democratic admin to screw up, her 2012 slogan can pretty much be "I told you so, bitches."

What would have been the upside for Palin staying as governor? She was a lame duck with a big target on her back. Nothing she did would make her look good and there were plenty of things that could have made her look bad. Why do you think Huntsman bailed in Utah? Or Obama stopped doing anything in the Senate? I think all of them showed a lack of honor, but I understand politically why they all did what they did.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." (July 7, 2009.)

"It's all for Alaska." (Asked by Time why she resigned, July 7, 2009).

"In what respect, Charlie?" (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine, September 11, 2008.)

"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy..." (Misunderstanding Alaska's 3.5% share of U.S. domestic energy production, September 11, 2008.)

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America." (October 16, 2008.)

"A task that is from God." (On the war in Iraq, June 8, 2008.)

"I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." (June 8, 2008.)

"To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all." (Asked if she was discouraged by polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket trailing, October 22, 2008.)

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" (August 1, 2008.)

"That's something that Piper would ask me!...[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." (asked by third grader Brandon Garcia what the Vice President does, October 20, 2008.)

"I cant think of any politician who has been pilloried this much for simply being who they are."

Try Lincoln. Members of his own Cabinet were convinced he was an idiot, as well as a lot of the press and a lot of the citizenry. States attempted to leave the Union simply because he was elected (and the reparations that some would like to see for slavery were paid in the aftermath; plenty of graves in National Cemeteries and other places constitute the receipt). And before anybody says "Yeah, but Palin is no Lincoln!" Just remember: to his contemporaries, Lincoln was no Lincoln.

Palin may or may not be the answer for the Republicans. Time will tell, and the country will regardless continue to lurch and stagger forward through history, largely in spite of ourselves.

The ridicule of Palin's every move is designed to make people who don't know much about her avoid her so they will not catch any ridicule for supporting her. It is a threat by innuendo that you will be scorned for being seen as a supporter and even called a "cult" member. This seldom works because Sarah"s strength of character and traditional American values show thru when she is on an unedited television spot. Who could be ashamed to be a supporter of that woman? Today's version2 attack is pointing out Sarah's femaleness makes her a a weak sister emotionally who folds and "quits". The obvious truth is that she adjusted her strategy to win it all, unfettered now by Alaska this, and Alaska that, and Alaska the other. Good move by her. And how are Romney and Huckabee doing at their hard daily working at Governor's jobs these days?

"A lot of people who don't like Palin are going to say their opinion got worse, but these folks don't matter to her. How many of them are in the 17%? Then you've got 9% who like her even more. And the vast majority of people say their opinion is the same."

Do you bother thinking about what you write?

You assume that the 17% are just bitter Palin-haters but that the 9% are somehow earnest survey respondents? Where does this benefit of the doubt for the latter group come from?

"I cant think of any politician who has been pilloried this much for simply being who they are."

And he said Lincoln. He was comparing the attacks from both sides of the aisle both politicians received. He wasn't making a comparison of achievements which is what your lack of reading comprehension evidently got out of that.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." (July 7, 2009.)

The state of Alaska has a Department of Law and she was drawing an analogy between handling things at the state level to how things would be handled at the national level. It's an analogy. Look it up.

"It's all for Alaska." (Asked by Time why she resigned, July 7, 2009).

When the Democratic Party is systematically abusing the ethics complaint procedure to bring the business of the state of Alaska to a grinding halt, then the state benefits by bringing it to an end. That's just common sense. And since the Democrats weren't going to relent in their "politics by any means possible," then she did the right thing for the citizenry. It's not a gaffe or an error. It's a statement of fact. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with the Democrats who continue to abuse the process.

"In what respect, Charlie?" (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine, September 11, 2008.)

Gibson wasn't clear as to which version of the Bush doctrine he was referring. He wasn't even aware that there was more than a single iteration. Dr. Krauthammer nailed Gibson for the ignorance of the question and the ignorance of those who claimed that there was only one single doctrine to which Gibson could possibly have been referring. So the author of this list only puts his own ignorance on display by including it.

"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy..." (Misunderstanding Alaska's 3.5% share of U.S. domestic energy production, September 11, 2008.)

Alaska produces an equivalent of 20% of the domestic consumption of the US. Much of that energy winds up being sold overseas, but her basic assertion was correct. Energy production is fungible and quibbling with the numbers deceptively assumes that it is not.

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America." (October 16, 2008.)

Is this supposed to be a problematic statement? Even Barack Obama has made similar statements about small towns. Putting it on this list is stupidity on stilts.

This isn't a gaffe or a lie or a distortion. It's an expression of her faith that whatever happens is a manifestion of God's will. Even putting it on this list shows an incredible bigotry.

"I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." (June 8, 2008.)

More bigotry.

"To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all." (Asked if she was discouraged by polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket trailing, October 22, 2008.)

Even more bigotry.

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" (August 1, 2008.)

The VP has no constitutionally defined duties other than presiding over the Senate. On a daily basis, he has only what duties the VP is allowed to perform by the president. Therefore, there is no such thing as a single definition of what a VP does.

"That's something that Piper would ask me!...[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." (asked by third grader Brandon Garcia what the Vice President does, October 20, 2008.)

The Vice President presides over the Senate and voets to break ties. VP Cheney was extremely active in this role.

Aw, fuck it Jeremy. I'll bite this time, if only to explain what I think was obvious to most everyone else who read what I wrote. The assertion was made that no other politician has ever been subjected to this treatment. My point was that Lincoln was subjected to far worse, and that Lincoln was considered by many of his contemporaries as a backwoods hillbilly hick. Turns out they were wrong. He was much smarter (and FAR shrewder) than the media of the time would have had the populace believe. This may or may not be the case with Palin. I'll reserve judgement until enough facts are in.

Crimso said..."Aw, fuck it Jeremy. I'll bite this time, if only to explain what I think was obvious to most everyone else who read what I wrote. The assertion was made that no other politician has ever been subjected to this treatment."

Ridiculous.

Clinton went through 8 years of silly investigations that cost taxpayers millions, had videos produced inferring that he was a cocaine drug lord, and that his wife literally murdered Vince Foster.

Does the Princess Sarah situation compare?

And as for other Presidents under fire for all kinds of things, there are plenty that took much more heat than your little sweetheart.

You're just whining to whine...just as Hoosier is jumping in to defend a fellow wingnut who, fo whatever bizarre reason, thinks this woman should be President of the United States.

Them's fightin' words. Care to compare C.V.'s? I try very hard not to come off as some kind of super-genius, because I'm not. I've been called many, many, many things over my life, and most have been accurate (and many unflattering). You will be very, very, very hard-pressed to find anyone who knows me personally or professionally who would call me dumb (even the ones who hate my guts with a searing passion). I recently made my actual identity public knowledge on this very blog. Feel free to do some research on my (admittedly modest) intellectual achievements.

("I cant think of any politician who has been pilloried this much for simply being who they are.")

I understand.

And he used Lincoln as his exampleAre you really this dense?

No, Just someone who actually knows history. Lincoln was castigated as a bumpkin and a fool and was hounded by both republicans and democrats. Cartoons portraying him as a chimp or as the devil were routine. If you read some books you would know this.

Are you also saying Princess Sarah's circumstances somehow compare in any way, shape or form to the situation and circumstances of the criticism leveled at Lincoln?

No. Never said anything of the kind but nice try at building a straw man. When the war began, criticism of Lincoln as an simple country idiot gave way to criticism of him as an authoritarian dictator who had Caesarian ambitions to destroy the Republic and anoint himself dictator. In that case I would say the criticisms resembled those that Bush endured. Now Truman was also considered a midwest dumbass but not nearly as bad as Lincoln although FDR barely tolerated him. In fact I thought it was a hoot that when Truman assumed office after FDR hit room temperature he had no idea we had the A-Bomb. Guess FDR didn’t think the VP needed to know those things. Real vote of confidence there eh?

The obvious truth is that she adjusted her strategy to win it all, unfettered now by Alaska this, and Alaska that, and Alaska the other.

"Adjusted her strategy" has all kinds of potential uses. Mark Sanford tells his wife that he's leaving her, "Jeannie I've adjusted my strategy". James McGreevey could've said when he came out, "Wife I've adjusted my strategy". Sadaam could have told his supporters as he ran for the spider-hole "Supporter of Iraq I've adjusted my strategy. That's really brilliant. There's no need to explain in any detail what that strategy is or will be, but it is an adjustment.

"There's no need to explain in any detail what that strategy is or will be, but it is an adjustment."

You forgot to mention that Patton adjusted his strategy too. So has every capable commander who ever took the field.

Thanks for reminding us though that the current crop of Democrats still haven't shown the same capabillities after doing their best to destroy the economy with Porkulus I. They just keep blindly pushing forward with the same failed strategy by now pushing for Porkulus II.

No thanks. I'll take someone who recognizes the value of re-evaluating strategy amidst changing circumstances and is willing to make the necessary changes over that kind of aggressive stupidity any day of the week.

Professor, IMHO, I don't think she's running for President. She must know in her marrow that she and her family will be torched to ashes if she dares to do that. The NOW crowd will burn her at the stake before she ever steps inside the White House.

I think she's doing something national, but not elected office. We all know what her immediate needs are: to eliminate her outrageous legal bills and to protect her family. She will begin to make speeches to crowds and conferences and make a bundle. That's a good start. I'm sure that in the future, she will be seen speaking to giants in the energy industry. And don't forget the many organizations dealing with children and adults with disabilities. Plus, I'm also sure that Christian organizations will be knocking at her door in droves.

The DC/NY/LA crowd don't seem to understand that politics isn't the goal and the end of all for the rest of us who live in Middle America. There are things in life that are more important than politics and power. I'm sure she sees herself serving in something that is not elected office, for the benefit of others. If she makes a cool income that pays all of those legal bills and helps her take care of all of her family's needs and wants in the process, that's a welcome thing.

Many also forget that many Christians across the country are watching all the evil heaped upon her and her family and sense that "God is watching" all of this, and that "He will not leave any of this business unfinished, nor the perpetrators unaccountable." (In other words: Andrew Sullivan should watch his behind. It's gonna get bit, sooner or later.) In the end, what others meant for evil, God will make sure that it is meant for good: I'm sure Sarah and her family take comfort in that.

Politics? Shmolitics! Who needs to be surrounded by vultures when good human beings will do? She'll do fine and move on.

OT but since Crismo brought up Lincoln, I am always struck by how contemporaries view him but would have never tolerated him by our standards and I’m not just talking his attitudes toward blacks but just how he handled the war. When it started he asked for 75,000 volunteers for three months and the men folk flocked to the call to arms. The ass kicking we got at First Bull Run convinced Lincoln and the War Department this war was going to last longer than 90 days. He replaced Commanders of the AoP on an almost constant basis, passing over superbly competent commanders like Kearney or Reynolds until settling on Grant who was hardly brilliant but was a simply realistic general (Grant’s strategy was based upon ‘I have more men than Lee’ and he just met Lee wherever he was and wore him down).

He presided over a war that was supposed to be over in a few months and instead dragged on for 4 years at enormous cost in lives. His fortitude in seeing the war through is one thing but his management was atrocious when you think of having to go through McClellan, Burnside (good lord) and Hooker. Meade was definitely a step up and at least delivered Lee’s first defeat. Had Grant or even better, Reynolds been in charge from day one Richmond would have been occupied within two months.

"Please; whatever you might think of Reagan's knowledge of political issues and the world, he looks like Einstein compared to Palin."

I agree that Reagan was a long-time conservative "thinker" and had written extensively on the subject; however,

He was dismissed, even after his 8 years in office, by Leftists and the media as "dim-witted" and "stupid" and every single one of the other adjectives which are being used to describe Palin and were used to describe Bush.

My point is that Leftists haven't had an original thought in decades. You use the same terms and engage in the same tactics election cycle after election cycle.

Leftists always dismiss the Republican candidate as stupid, no matter what credentials they have.

The fact that they have done so time after time after time after time is much like the boy crying wolf: No one believes you any more. No one is listening to you. No one cares what you have to say.

Throw that stuff around the echo chamber and listen to the lovely reverberations, but we've seen the same song and dance before. It's time to raise the curtain on a new show.

Similar to Jesse Jackson in his 1984-1992 heyday, she's got loads of natural talent, and a great life story, but she hasn't had the chance to get up to speed on all the things a Presidential contender is supposed to know.

Jesse had 90% of the black vote and enough guilty whites that he was polling as the choice of about 23% of all Americans. (Run, Jesse! Run!) Jesse became too big and too important to ever want to settle for a Statewide or Congressional office. He was simply Too Big for that!

And being out of office allowed him freedom from the ethics, financial limitations, scrutiny elected officials fall under - free to make money with TV shows, radio shows, columns ghostwriters helped him write, corporate "consultation" fees. And to chase the media to keep Jesse on TV.

There is also the equally qualified Joe the Plumber, the other Cult "insta-celebrity" - maybe he will come into the fray dispensing his "blue collar, real Midwest, don't need to college degree to tell it like it is" wisdom.

Maybe we will be treated to seeing Joe the Plumber out there trying to "excite the Base" and get their votes. Which would cut into Palin's natural constituency.

You also have the Cult of Ron Paul libertarians out there who may go with a traditionalist candidate or fall in love with Joe the Plumber. Or Palin...though they may object to her milking private companies of revenue in Alaska or her eagerness to get us in wars Israel wants us to fight or pay money to buy off Israel's opponents "Yah just never 2nd guess what Israel wants. Yah just never 2nd-guess them!"

I notice that Mitch Daniels isn't even listed, though he would make a strong candidate. He is extremely popular in Indiana and his re-election wasn’t even in question last year. Funny how Indiana went for Obama yet overwhelmingly re-elected the evil Republican Daniels. Probably had something to do with him actually pulling Indiana out of the debt our previous genius governor (Democrat) left us with and balancing our budget! About the only people I know who don’t like him are the most rabid partisans who can’t see past the R at the end of his name.

Mitch resonates in Indiana but I’m not sure he would flip the levers on a national basis. He’s a policy wonk but I’m not sure he has the charisma to carry it through. Although I suspect based upon the downward spiral Obama is taking us, we’ll be looking for anyone with a modicum of fiscal sanity by 2012 and it will take more than teleprompter skills to win.

newton - Many also forget that many Christians across the country are watching all the evil heaped upon her and her family and sense that "God is watching" all of this, and that "He will not leave any of this business unfinished, nor the perpetrators unaccountable.".

You expect the hardcore Religious Right to rally to a woman who has some stated skepticism of evolution, or to unhesitating creationist Pastor Huckleberry.

Just as criticism of Reverend Jackson found the more he was slammed on lack of knowledge, half-baked ideas, or speaking in simplistic slogans...the more black churches rallied to Jesse. The more they equated Preacher Jesse's suffering scorn, with Jesus's own suffering. The religious blacks were Jesse's bulwark, along with several wealthy guilty whites.

Rev Al Sharpton had a similar "excited base". Just smaller than what Palin or Jackson appear to command.

C-4...You at last identified a cult in politics; which is Ron Paul's continuation of the John Birch Society cult. I also see that you think Palin is from the "Hardcore Religious Right". Now I understand why you feel a need to pin the Cult label on Palin supporters. Everyone knows that the Hardcore Religious Right, (such as John Hagee) does openly love and support Israel. But are you certain that Palin is guilty of such a heresy? Maybe it is that old Weimar Atmosphere at work again? I have never heard that Palin favors Israel like those Hardcore Christians do.

"Mitch resonates in Indiana but I’m not sure he would flip the levers on a national basis. He’s a policy wonk but I’m not sure he has the charisma to carry it through."

That's why I was thinking that he would make a good underticket choice.

For example, if Palin decides to run in 2012 and chose Daniels as a VP then she automatically adds "policy wonk" to the ticket and deflects the primary criticism of her: that she isn't sufficiently policy-oriented.

(In much the same way that Bush chose Cheney to add gravitas and Obama chose Biden to add foreign policy cred - though we know how badly that has turned out.)

Question, how long before she moves to the lower 48 and where will she move? It will need to be a strategic decision. DC or NYC could lose her some points about being an outsider. I am thinking somewhere like Nashville, Atlanta or Dallas.

But if she works for Fox she may need to be headquartered in DC or NYC although they could decide to change her show from another locale.

Is Huckabee's show in NYC? If so, that just seems weird. Mike Huckabee in NYC? I couldn't picture it.

Wherever she lands I would still like to pork her. With her on top. Hair starting in an updo and then falling in her face, thighs glistening, Alaskan moose moans, grinding hard, laying back, moving head back and forth, touching breasts, sticking hair in her mouth, riding slow and long as well as fast and hard, telling me I have a big hog.....And I am the best.

Palin doesn't have to "go dark." Resigning her office means that now she can choose to speak out selectively on the subjects where she is already strong: energy independence, for example

You know, just because Sarah Palin says "energy independence" is important doesn't mean she knows the first thing about it. In fact, can you explain what the hell her position on "energy independence" is other than "drill, baby, drill"?

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy

No, what she (and apparently you) don't understand is the difference between energy and oil production.

Your so clever, but more cracks like that and I'll be forced to have Acorn's black ops squad steal your family and have them converted to Socialists in Rev. Wright's basement while being instructed by NANCY PELOSI with the Bill Ayers handbook and a bowl of aragula.

Freder... Drill baby drill is a clear call to reach and pump our own oil and gas resources. That has two opposing political forces: (1)the Ethanol/Windmill industrial complex being given huge government grants today, and (2) the Russian/Saudi Arabian Oil and Gas Monopolists, being given a head start to buy up the World's assets starting here. It is amazing that politics today can still pretend that we have no problem/crisis with currency devaluation from buying our oil and gas from outside the USA.

traditional guy - I have never heard that Palin favors Israel like those Hardcore Christians do.

Palin has never cast the matter in fawning subserviance to Jews and Israel's desires as some of the Fundie preachers have. Some of those nutballs have gone so far as to say the 2nd Covenent God made, with Christians, really doesn't exist...only the 1st made with the Jews, is valid. And it is God's will that all Jews gather in Israel to herald the End of Days. And that since only the Jews are Chosen, until the End of Days, any who Christian who refuses what Israel or its Jewish advocates overseas wants - defies God and emperils their soul.

However, Palin has added her unreserved love for "Our Special Friend and main ally" Israel, into her spiel. And when asked if she supported Israel bombing Iran if they think it serves Israel - she replied "Yah never 2nd guess what Israel wants." Pressed further, she stuck with the line "You just don't second guess Israel. Yah just don't."

To me - while she has avoided casting foreign policy with Israel as a specific religious matter, vs. secular - her answers may indicate a religious undercurrent:

Consider how bizarre, or even dual layalty-sounding it would be for Palin to answer a question about something long-time friendly, formally treatied allies like Canada/UK/Australia/France/Bahamas/etc wants:

"Yah just never 2nd guess what Canada wants when it comes to us supporting them. Yah just never do that. Yah just never 2nd guess them.."

Substitute any long-time treatied ally of ours that we have fought with and worked with for generations....

"We owe it to France to honor their wishes about Iran..."

================ Good little treatise by Hoosier on Lincoln. All too often, the shallow narrative given to "heroes" like Lincoln or MLK or JFK in public schools ignore their significant flaws.

"Your so clever, but more cracks like that and I'll be forced to have Acorn's black ops squad steal your family and have them converted to Socialists in Rev. Wright's basement while being instructed by NANCY PELOSI with the Bill Ayers handbook and a bowl of aragula."

They'd have to get through the secret army of the Illuminati which were hired out at the behest of the Bilderbergers to get to me.

Maybe you'd have better luck countering them by co-opting the secret cabal headed by Dick Cheney that invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of increasing the value of his stock in Halliburton.

Freder said: No, what she (and apparently you) don't understand is the difference between energy and oil production.

Oil has intrinsic energy value measured in interchangable units of energy. The real price of oil has risen because of dollar devaluation, OPEC, and the cost of keeping open access to markets. Oil and gas will remain the cheapest, most versatile energy sources on the block for some time, regardless of what we as a nation do.

Apparently what you don't understand is the economics of energy production, and value of domestic production.

One of the chief reasons Sarah Palin has given for resigning as Governor of Alaska is that her state’s taxpayers are being forced to spend money defending her government against ethics complaints that would otherwise fund teachers, cops, and road repair.

But in response to our questions, a spokesperson for the Alaska governor’s office just gave us new information that casts serious doubt on this assertion. The revelation makes the resignation episode even stranger, and raises fresh questions about the real reasons for her abrupt departure.

During her resignation speech last week, Palin presented herself as a heroic defender of the taxpayer. She said that money being spent on government lawyers to defend against these “frivolous ethics violations” could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.” Palin repeated exactly the same point this week.

But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints.

But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints.

That implies either (1) that the lawyers were getting paid to do nothing or (2) are now neglecting something that they used to do because they are busy with the ethics "scandal."

"But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints."

Wow, I guess that's okay then. I'm sure that those lawyers were glad to have *something* to do with their paid but completely free time. It's good to know that the time spent on ethics complaints that Governor Palin formed a defense fund to address ethics complains didn't take them away from any other work they might have been able to do.

More seriously... what is this attitude about spending tax money as if it isn't actually real, somehow, if it's in the budget?

Money spent on one thing is money not spent on something else. Time spent by lawyers and staff handling an ethics complaint about a picture of Palin holding a fish is time *not* spent taking care of State business.

Maybe it is a significant distinction that some of us feel that it's right and good and shows character for a public servant to be concerned about the cost of services they are entitled to (the staff time and state resources to research and verify or dismiss ethics complaints that the Governor answered a reporter's question during an interview in her office) and those who think that those concerns show a lack of character.

It's even more telling that those who are complaining aren't even sincere. Given the grotesque number of ethical violations we have already seen in the Obama administration and how eager these same people are to defend them with their dying breath, they give away their game.

As with their multiple complaints about the Bush administration which have been mooted with their vociferous defenses of similar or even more aggregious actions by the Obama administration, they make plain that it was never anything more deceitful politics thinly disguised by their faux outrage.

They believe themselves to be dealing with rubes who won't notice the double-dealing, and the second that it is pointed out the juvenile taunting and attempts to change the subject begin.

I wish it were simply a matter of a difference of opinion over how government employees utilize public resources, but it's something far worse than that.

Kylos : Palin has shown some significant flaws that need to be addressed (though the vicious attacks only make me defend her more). And as for Rush, he's a blowhard who only helps to reduce the level of discourse in this country. I don't see why I should support that.

It's okay if you think these things, but Republican politicians are crazy if they think they can express them and not get hit with a ton a angry calls from their supporters.

As for Rush reducing the level of discourse, he has people talking about politics instead of Paris Hilton; you've got to give him that. You don't see in depth political analysis on TV anymore; at least he's trying.

"It's okay if you think these things, but Republican politicians are crazy if they think they can express them and not get hit with a ton a angry calls from their supporters."

I agree. Here's the deal if you're a Republican politician. Even if you hate the sight of Palin and/or Rush, the plain and simple fact is that they have huge followings in your (potential) constituency.

Saying something bad about them is not going to be smart politics no matter how you slice it. Better to say something noncommital or pass on the question than risk alienating a decent portion of those who would vote for you if you hadn't felt the need to voice your personal pique about another individual.

There can be no real substantive questions about Palin or Limbaugh as neither is going to be an office holder at the end of the month. Neither has the ability to set a legislative agenda. So any kind of question is inevitably either an attempt to trap you into a politically unpalatable answer or asking for pure speculation. Either is easily avoidable.

To get ready for the segment I drilled down into reporting on those 15 pesky ethics complaints, the ones she said cost Alaska "millions of dollars." In fact, the Anchorage Daily News reports that the complaints cost the state $286,000, and the most costly set (there were several) had to do with Troopergate, which had exploded before Palin was tapped by Sen. John " Why, God, Why?" McCain. .

Palin is lying about these cases costing the state millions. Althouse is not affected by facts.

More Palin dishonesty:

And while Palin described the complaints as the work of Democratic political operatives and east coast media types looking for dirt, all but one of them were filed by her constituents in Alaska. That one exception was a complaint by a DC watchdog group about her $150,000 clothing gift from RNC.

The rest of the complaints were all filed by Alaskans. Four of the complaints were filed by a Republican former ally of Palin's, Andree McLeod, who turned on her because she felt Palin was cutting ethical corners, hiring cronies and using a private email account to conduct public business outside the realm of public records. Many of the complaints predated her vice presidential nomination. And at least one of the complaints was clearly justified; Palin had to pay back about $8,000 in travel expenses for her children. Another is still pending: A seemingly reasonable complaint about Palin charging the state per diem when she's living in her own house in Wasilla rather than the governor's mansion.

According to Palin's version of events, when she took office, she championed a major overhaul of the state's ethics laws. To hear Palin tell it, her opponents are now using her own achievement against her -- exploiting the law to waste taxpayer money, bankrupt the state's governor, and paralyze state government.

Doesn't that suggest there's something wrong with the new ethics laws? If the measures were written in such a way as to make it easy and cost-free for anyone to cripple the state's political process, then don't the reform laws need reforming? Indeed, even putting Palin aside, won't all future Alaskan governors have to deal with the same problem?

With regard to overstating the costs, you're the one being dishonest. The authors of these pieces are only counting extra manhours, not manhours and costs that would have otherwise been spent conducting the state's business. Those count too. But I guess selective quoting is OK with you as long as no one does it to Obama, right?

Palin never said anyone from out of state filed ethics charges so the authors are erecting straw men and trying to claim that Palin lied when she did no such thing. She said the media descended on Alaska trying to dig up dirt, do you deny this?

I notice how the authors conveniently skip over the frivolous ethics charges that were filed by Democrats like they never existed. Selective quoting again.

You've got a helluva lot of nerve bitching about Hannity when you're guilty of the same thing 3 posts in a row.